CNUDMI - A CN.9 WG.III WP.265

United Nations A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

General Assembly

Distr.: Limited 25 February 2026

English only

V.26-02495 (E) 2602495

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor -State Dispute Settlement Reform) Fifty-fourth session Vienna, 23–27 March 2026

Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement

Submission from the Government of Singapore on certain aspects concerning the jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal

In preparation for the fifty -fourth session of Working Group III, the Government of Singapore made a submission with regard to the draft statute of a permanent tribunal for international investment disputes (contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP .259). The annex to this note reproduces the submission received by the Secretariat on 24 February 2026 in the form in which it was received.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

V .26-02495 2/8

Annex

I. Introduction

1. Singapore is pleased to submit the present proposal on select aspects concerning the jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal (previously referred to as the Dispute Tribunal), for the consideration of the Working Group. This submission is to be read in conju nction with the draft statute of a permanent tribunal for international investment disputes as contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP .259.

2. At the fifty -second session of the Working Group in September 2025, the Working Group considered the draft provision on the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat (see Article 14 of a draft statute of a standing mechanism contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.239 ), alongside an alternative provision on this issue proposed by the European Union and its Member States

Tribunal prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat (see Article 14 of a draft statute of a standing mechanism contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.239 ), alongside an alternative provision on this issue proposed by the European Union and its Member States (contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.257 ).

3. Singapore has considered the differing preferences expressed by delegations during the fifty -second session concerning whether the Dispute Tribunal should have exclusive or non -exclusive jurisdiction over disputes submitted pursuant to a proposed listing m echanism (see Report of Working Group III on the work of its fiftysecond session contained in A/CN.9/1238 , paras. 120 -130). In this paper, Singapore sets out its proposal for bridging these different preferences.

4. For completeness, we note that the draft statute of a permanent tribunal for international investment disputes (contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.259 ) has proposed to address further the issue of exclusive or non -exclusive jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal in the multilateral instrument on ISDS reform (“MIIR”). While Singapore’s proposal in this paper is drafted for inclusion into the draft statut e, it can be easily transposed to the MIIR, and is without prejudice to further discussions on whether this issue should be situated in the MIIR or the draft statute.

II. Proposed text of Article 14

5. Singapore proposes that Article 14 be reformulated as follows.

Article 14 – Jurisdiction

1. The jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal shall extend to any international investment dispute that the parties to the dispute have consented in writing to submit to the Permanent Tribunal. When all of the disputing parties have given their consent, no disputing party may withdraw its consent unilaterally.

2. A Contracting Party may consent to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal,

by providing a list of instruments, including: (a) Any treaty providing for the protection of investors or investments, to which the Contracting Party is a party (“investment treaty”);

2. A Contracting Party may consent to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal,

by providing a list of instruments, including: (a) Any treaty providing for the protection of investors or investments, to which the Contracting Party is a party (“investment treaty”); (b) [Any law adopted or maintained by that Contracting Party governing foreign investments, and over which the Contracting Party decides to grant jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal (“investment law”)]; and (c) [Any other instrument for which the Contracting Party decides to consent to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal (“other instrument”)]. The Contracting Party’s listing of instruments pursuant to this paragraph shall constitute that Contracting Party’s consent in writing, in satisfaction of paragraph 1, for any international investment dispute arising thereunder to be submitted to the Permanent Tribunal.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

3/8 V .26-02495

3. Further to paragraph 2(a), a Contracting Party may additionally indicate, for each investment treaty it has listed, that it desires to grant exclusive jurisdiction to

the Permanent Tribunal.

4. In an international investment dispute initiated by an investor (“disputing investor”) of one Contracting Party (“relevant Contracting Party”) against another Contracting Party (“disputing Contracting Party”) arising out of an investment treaty, the Perman ent Tribunal shall have jurisdiction over the dispute:

(a) If the disputing Contracting Party has listed that investment treaty under paragraph 2(a), and the disputing investor submits the dispute to the Permanent Tribunal; (b) If the disputing Contracting Party and the relevant Contracting Party have listed that investment treaty under paragraph 2(a) and additionally made notifications under paragraph 3, in which case the Permanent Tribunal’s jurisdiction shall be to the exclusion of all other dispute resolution options that may have been set out in the investment treaty concerned. For greater certainty, the notifications made by the disputing Contracting Party and the relevant Contracting Party pursuant to paragraph

under paragraph 3, in which case the Permanent Tribunal’s jurisdiction shall be to the exclusion of all other dispute resolution options that may have been set out in the investment treaty concerned. For greater certainty, the notifications made by the disputing Contracting Party and the relevant Contracting Party pursuant to paragraph 3 shall be deemed to be withdrawals of consent to any other dispute resolution options set out in the investment treaty concerned. 5. [Placeholder for corresponding permutations for “investment law” and “other instruments” scenarios, depending on the WG’s decision on paras 2(b) and (c).]

6. A Contracting Party providing a list of instruments pursuant to paragraph 2 shall set out its list in accordance with the Model List annexed to the [Protocol]. The list may include the additional indications referred to in paragraph 3. Each Contracting Party’s list of instruments shall be deposited with [the depositary of the Protocol] and notified to the [Executive Director].

7. A Contracting Party’s list of instruments and indications shall remain in force, unless amended or withdrawn. Amendments shall be made by way of the process in paragraph 6, and shall take effect on the date of their deposit with [the depositary of the Prot ocol].

8. The [Executive Director] shall be responsible for maintaining the list of instruments and indications provided by each Contracting Party and making it publicly available.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

V .26-02495 4/8

Annex – Model List

Listing and indication(s) of [ insert name of Contracting Party ] pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3) S/n Name of investment treaty/ [investment laws]/ [other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3)

6. The above reformulation is not intended to take a position on whether the

[other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3)

6. The above reformulation is not intended to take a position on whether the Permanent Tribunal may have jurisdiction over non -treaty-based disputes, or disputes involving non -Contracting Parties or their investors.

III. Explanatory comments

7. In a nutshell, Singapore’s proposed reformulation, which reflects a proposal also made by the delegation of Switzerland during the fifty -second session, would allow Contracting Parties to choose whether to grant exclusive or non -exclusive jurisdiction to t he Permanent Tribunal. Under this reformulation, where both parties to a listed investment treaty make the same choice to grant exclusive jurisdiction, the Permanent Tribunal would earn exclusive jurisdiction. Singapore considers this to be in line with general treaty law principles since the granting of exclusive jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal is, in effect, a removal of all other ISDS options set out in that treaty. As a matter of treaty law, such replacement should occur only if both relevant treaty parties agree to modify the investment treaty as between themselves.

8. This approach preserves each Contracting Party’s choice of dispute resolution modality vis-à-vis each of its instruments. It creates a clear mechanism for the indication of each Contracting Party’s choice. Contracting Parties that may have initially recognised only the non -exclusive jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal are also allowed to subsequen tly amend their position, and recognise the Permanent Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction when they are in a position to do so.

9. To illustrate how this provision would work, we take the example of a bilateral investment treaty between Country A and Country B that is listed by both countries pursuant to Article 14(2).

(a) Where both Country A and Country B indicate, pursuant to Article 14(3), that they recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal in respect of

investment treaty between Country A and Country B that is listed by both countries pursuant to Article 14(2). (a) Where both Country A and Country B indicate, pursuant to Article 14(3), that they recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal in respect of disputes submitted for resolution under the said treaty, the Permanent Tribunal would be conferred with exc lusive jurisdiction over such disputes. (b) Where either Country A or Country B does not, or both Country A and Country B do not indicate that they recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of the Permanent Tribunal in respect of disputes submitted for resolution under the said treaty, the Permanent Trib unal would nonetheless be conferred with jurisdiction (albeit on a non -exclusive basis) over such a dispute submitted by the disputing investor to the Permanent Tribunal. The earlier consent of Country A and Country B to other dispute resolution meth ods under that treaty (e.g. ICSID arbitration) would still remain in force.

10. In the situation where Country A lists the bilateral investment treaty pursuant to Article 14(2) but Country B does not, the Permanent Tribunal would be conferred non-exclusive jurisdiction only over disputes against Country A, which are submitted for reso lution under the said treaty by investors of Country B.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

5/8 V .26-02495

11. We have proposed a Model List to be used by Contracting Parties when submitting their lists and making their indications, to ensure that each Contracting Party’s choice is made clear. The use of model forms in multilateral conventions is not new, and is es pecially useful when clarity and a standardised approach is necessary, as in the present case.

12. For a plurilateral investment treaty, our proposed approach would also enable the Permanent Tribunal to be conferred with exclusive jurisdiction for any subset of that treaty’s parties which have, as amongst themselves, indicated a desire to grant exclusiv e jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal pursuant to Article 14(3). The Permanent Tribunal will enjoy non -exclusive jurisdiction in relation to those treaty

the Permanent Tribunal to be conferred with exclusive jurisdiction for any subset of that treaty’s parties which have, as amongst themselves, indicated a desire to grant exclusiv e jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal pursuant to Article 14(3). The Permanent Tribunal will enjoy non -exclusive jurisdiction in relation to those treaty parties which have listed it under Article 14(2) but without making the additional indication under Article 14(3).

13. If there is interest in the Working Group to provide even further granularity, our proposal can be easily refined to allow a Contracting Party to choose a different approach in respect of each of its treaty counterparties, if it so wishes. For example, where Countries A, B and C are party to the same plurilateral investment treaty, Country A may choose to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal in respect of its treaty relationship with Country B, while recognising the non-exclusive jurisdict ion of the Permanent Tribunal in respect of its treaty relationship with Country C. Please refer to the Appendix for a full illustration of our proposed reformulation, which shows in greater detail the operation of the provision under the various investmen t treaty scenarios described above.

14. The inclusive and flexible approach reflected in Singapore’s proposal for Article 14 would promote wider acceptance of the Permanent Tribunal by catering to different comfort levels amongst different Contracting Parties. It also does not pre -judge that Contracting Parties must, in all cases, necessarily grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal once a treaty is listed. This could instead have the unintended effect of deterring Contracting Parties from listing their treaties, especially where a Contracting Party is supportive of the Permanent Tribunal, but may not be comfortable yet with making it the sole forum for resolving investment disputes.

Finally, Singapore’s proposal aligns with general treaty law principles, including principles applica ble to the amendment of treaties.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

V .26-02495 6/8

Appendix – Full illustration of Singapore’s proposed Article 14 in operation

Assume the following factual scenario:

principles applica ble to the amendment of treaties.A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

V .26-02495 6/8

Appendix – Full illustration of Singapore’s proposed Article 14 in operation

Assume the following factual scenario:

1. These 6 countries are amongst the Contracting States to the Permanent Tribunal:

Auroria; Beautifino; Costanova; Diamondland; Egalitus; and Fortuna.

2. Auroria has the following investment treaty relationships:

(a) Bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with Beautifino – Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Beautifino (b) Bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) with Costanova – Free Trade Agreement between Auroria and Costanova (c) BIT with Diamondland – Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Diamondland (d) BIT with Egalitus – Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Egalitus (e) Plurilateral FTA with Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna – Free Trade Agreement between Auroria, Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna

3. Auroria fills out its list of instruments as follows:

Annex Listing and declaration(s) of Auroria pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3)

S/n Name of investment treaty/ [investment laws]/ [other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) 1 Free Trade Agreement between Auroria and Costanova Costanova 2 Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Diamondland Diamondland 3 Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Egalitus Egalitus Yes 4 Free Trade Agreement between Auroria, Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna Diamondland Egalitus Fortuna Yes

Diamondland 3 Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Egalitus Egalitus Yes 4 Free Trade Agreement between Auroria, Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna Diamondland Egalitus Fortuna Yes

4. Beautifino fills out its list of instruments as follows:

Annex Listing and declaration(s) of Beautifino pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3)

S/n Name of investment treaty/ [investment laws]/ [other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) - - - -A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

7/8 V .26-02495

5. Costanova fills out its list of instruments as follows:

Annex Listing and declaration(s) of Costanova pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3)

S/n Name of investment treaty/[investment laws]/[other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) - - - -

6. Diamondland fills out its list of instruments as follows:

Annex Listing and declaration(s) of Diamondland pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3)

S/n Name of investment treaty/[investment laws]/ [other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) 1 Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Diamondland Auroria 2 Free Trade Agreement between Auroria, Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna Auroria Egalitus

exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) 1 Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Diamondland Auroria 2 Free Trade Agreement between Auroria, Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna Auroria Egalitus Fortuna

7. Egalitus fills out its list of instruments as follows:

Annex Listing and declaration(s) of Egalitus pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3)

S/n Name of investment treaty/ [investment laws]/ [other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) 1 Investment Protection Agreement between Auroria and Egalitus Auroria Yes 2 Free Trade Agreement between Auroria, Diamondland, Egalitus and Fortuna Auroria Diamondland Fortuna Yes

8. Fortuna fills out its list of instruments as follows:

Annex Listing and declaration(s) of Fortuna pursuant to Article 14(2) and (3)

S/n Name of investment treaty/ [investment laws]/ [other instruments] Other States parties to the instrument Indicate “Yes” if desiring to grant exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 14(3) - - - -

9. Taking into account the countries’ lists above, the position with respect to the

various treaties would be as follows: (a) For the BIT between Auroria and Beautifino , the Permanent Tribunal has no jurisdiction. This is because neither country listed the treaty. (b) For the FTA between Auroria and Costanova , the Permanent Tribunal will have non-exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Costanova investors against Auroria . This is because Auroria listed the treaty in its list but did

no jurisdiction. This is because neither country listed the treaty. (b) For the FTA between Auroria and Costanova , the Permanent Tribunal will have non-exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Costanova investors against Auroria . This is because Auroria listed the treaty in its list but did not confer exclusive jurisdiction, thus consenting to the Permanent Tribunal serving as another forum to deal with claims against it in addition to any other fora originallyA/CN.9/WG.III/WP.265

V .26-02495 8/8

provided in the treaty. However, the Permanent Tribunal will have no jurisdiction over claims brought by Auroria investors against Costanova , because Costanova did not list the treaty. (c) For the BIT between Auroria and Diamondland , the Permanent Tribunal will have jurisdiction over claims brought under this BIT by either country’s investors against the other country . This is because both countries listed the treaty. However, the Permanent Tribunal’s jurisdiction will be non-exclusive since both countries did not indicate that they desired to grant exclusive jurisdiction to it. Therefore, any other ISDS options (e.g. ICSID arbitration, or arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules) originally provided for by the treaty will continue to be available. (d) For the BIT between Auroria and Egalitus , the Permanent Tribunal will have exclusive jurisdiction over all claims brought under this BIT by either country’s investors against the other country. This is because both countries listed the treaty and additionally indicated that they desired to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Permanent Tribunal, by virtue of Article 14(4)(b), to the exclusion of any other fora originally provided in the treaty. (e) For the plurilateral FTA between Auroria, Diamondland , Egalitus and Fortuna , the analysis will involve examining each country’s entries in its list vis-à- vis the others. (i) As between Auroria and Diamondland , the Permanent Tribunal will have jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Auroria investors against

Fortuna , the analysis will involve examining each country’s entries in its list vis-à- vis the others. (i) As between Auroria and Diamondland , the Permanent Tribunal will have jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Auroria investors against Diamondland, and vice versa . This is because both countries listed this treaty. However, the Permanent Tribunal’s jurisdiction will be non-exclusive because only Auroria desired to grant it exclusive jurisdiction, but not Diamondland. Therefore, any other ISDS options (e.g. ICSID arbitration, or arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules) originally pr ovided for by the treaty will continue to be available. (ii) As between Auroria and Egalitus , the Permanent Tribunal will have exclusive jurisdiction over all claims brought under this FTA by either country’s investors against the other country. This is for reasons similar to 9(d) above in this Appendix. (iii) As between Auroria and Fortuna , the Permanent Tribunal will have nonexclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Fortuna investors against Auroria , but will have no jurisdiction over claims brought by Auroria investors against Fortuna . This is for reasons similar to 9(b) above in this Appendix. (iv) As between Diamondland and Egalitus , the Permanent Tribunal will have non-exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by investors of either country against the other country . This is for reasons similar to 9(e)(i) above in this Appendix. (v) As between Diamondland and Fortuna , the Permanent Tribunal will have non-exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Fortuna investors against Diamondland , but will have no jurisdiction over claims brought by Diamondland investors against Fortuna . This is for reasons similar to 9(e)(iii) (read with 9(b)) above in this Appendix. (vi) As between Egalitus and Fortuna , the Permanent Tribunal will have nonbrought by Diamondland investors against Fortuna . This is for reasons similar to 9(e)(iii) (read with 9(b)) above in this Appendix. (vi) As between Egalitus and Fortuna , the Permanent Tribunal will have nonexclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under this FTA by Fortuna investors against Egalitus , but will have no jurisdiction over claims brought by Egalitus investors against Fortuna . This is for reasons similar to 9(e)(iii) (read with 9(b)) above in this Appendix.